C (5:25)

Wow. So you've got. You know what will never cease to amaze me is that you have these federal judges that just go on Facebook and like, Trump's terrible. Like, I mean, the fact that a judge would feel so you know, loose to say something political publicly on a social media site, it just, it's just damning. I mean, in and of itself, I just find it really crass and low class actually. I don't know if you're trying to chime in here, Blake, but it's just like you, you know, judges, you have this air of impartiality, you have an air of being above the fray and then you just go on Facebook and like Trump sucks. Like, okay. I don't know, it just seems beneath the office.

E (6:07)

Yeah, it is. It's also a violation of the judicial canons. But I would say this about that US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart. The timing of that Mar A Lago raid seems very fishy. He recuses in the civil lawsuit. Six weeks later the recusal issue goes away and all of a sudden Jay Bratt is down in Mar A Lago sniffing around and coming up with a pretext to do this raid for presidential records that the President is allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act. What did, did Bruce Reinhart talk to Jay Bratz about this? How did Jay Bratt know that these documents were going to be produced in that civil lawsuit versus Hillary when it was? This whole thing needs to be investigated and all of these bad actors need to be investigated, including these judges.

C (6:55)

So you say we need accountability here. I would agree. Mike Davis Article 3 Project so you form a grand jury. What would accountability look like for somebody like Jack Smith?

E (7:10)

The accountability would be what we've been talking about for over three years. You open up a criminal probe under 18 USC section 241, conspiracy against rights. When you politicize and weaponize intel agencies and law enforcement to go after your political enemies for non crimes, that's the textbook definition of conspiracy against rights. Jack Smith is very well aware of this conspiracy against rights crime because it's one of the four charges he made against President Trump for the non crime of the the non crime of President Trump objecting to a presidential election which is allowed by the Electoral Count act of 1887 and the First Amendment. Jack Smith can go into that closed door hearing and say whatever he wants. He said he had all the goods, he had all the evidence to get President Trump. He didn't. This guy is a partisan Scud missile who Democrats sent in to take out Republican presidential candidates. They'd sent in Jack Smith to take out former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald when he was a likely presidential candidate. For Republicans, Jack Smith got a criminal conviction for fraud. It got overturned eight to nothing by the Supreme Court of the United States. It would have been nine to nothing but Justice Scalia died. But Jack Smith didn't care. The damage was done. He took out Governor McDonnell as a presidential candidate. Jack Smith got banished to the Hague. He should have lost his law license after that. He's after you get beat eight to nothing at the Supreme Court. It's very hard to get beat eight to nothing at the Supreme Court, particularly on a criminal case. But Jack Smith found the way and they brought him back. The Biden regime brought him back to take out Trump at all costs. They failed because President Trump hired John Sauer, now the Solicitor General, and John Sauer raised the presidential immunity argument, which stopped the prosecution's in their tracks. But if John Sauer didn't do that, President Trump would be sitting in a prison cell right now instead of the White House.

D (9:12)

But it does strike me, isn't that probably the best defense Jack Smith could make is you can say it's politicized. I think we agree it felt politicized, but a lot of it is if they can cover it with enough measure of legal formality and getting evidence. He brings up, we have part of his statement and he said, I just brought the charges that a grand jury returned. So doesn't he have sort of a pretty strong defense of a grand jury agreed with this?

C (9:39)

Yep. 50 seconds here.

E (9:41)

Everyone knows a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. And you have a separate duty as a prosecutor to make sure that you have probable cause, to make sure that there is a good faith legal basis for what you're doing, to make sure that you're not bringing he remember what Jack Smith did, He brought novel legal charges. He tried to throw Trump in prison for the non crime of having presidential records, which is allowed by the Presidential Records Act. He tried to throw Trump in prison for the non crime of objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count act of 1887 and the First Amendment. Jack Smith politicized and weaponized intel agencies and law enforcement to take out Trump along with many, many others. And and Jack Smith can raise that defense to the jury. This is Lane Schoenberger, chief investment officer.

B (10:33)

And founding partner of yrefi. It has been an honor and a privilege to partner with Turning Point and.

E (10:39)

For Charlie to endorse us.

B (10:40)

His endorsement means the world to us.

E (10:42)

And we look forward to continuing our partnership with Turningpoint for years to come. Now hear Charlie in his own words.

C (10:49)

Tell you about whyrefi.

A (10:50)

I'm gonna tell you guys about yrefi.com that is yrefy.com why? Why refi is incredible. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. Why refi is refinancing distress or defaulted private student loans. You can finally take control of your student loan situation with a plan that works for your monthly budget. Go to yrefi.com that is whyrefi.com do you have a co borrower? Why Refi can get them released from the loan. You can skip a payment up to 12 times without penalty. It may not be available in all 50 states. Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com let's face it, if you have distress or default to student loans, it can be overwhelming because of privacy loan debt so many people feel stuck. Go to yrefi.com that is yre f y.com Private student loan debt relief yrefi.com.

C (11:39)

Mike, what have you heard from your sources about this briefing that happened on the narco boats? I mean, even Fetterman's coming out and saying that this is all legal. They have a three step process, multi tier process and there's lawyers at every step of the way. Is there any concern that they're gonna have any legal basis to attack Pete Hegseth when he's no longer Secretary of War, for example, or any of the people in the chain of command here?

E (12:04)

President of the United States as the commander in chief has the constitutional and statutory power and duty to protect our nation, including repelling an invasion. And that's exactly what's going on here. You have these narco boats bringing in fentanyl that's killing tens of thousands of Americans. And that the President is well within his constitutional and statutory authority. He's well within his constitutional authority as the commander in chief under the commander in chief clause, even if there's not a declaration of war. Because going back to our founding, everyone agrees that the President can repel an invasion into our country. And also under the War powers Act of 1973 passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto. Many presidents do not consider the War Powers act constitutional because they think it constrains too much of the President's power to fight wars and to defend our country. But even if you think that the War powers Act of 1973 is constitutional, what President Trump is doing is within his statutory powers under the War Powers act of 1973, there's no legal issue here whatsoever. And I don't remember these Democrats like Senator Mark Kelly complaining when President Obama ordered extrajudicial drone Strikes on American citizens abroad, including a minor. So if, and I supported that. If President Obama can drone strike Americans, President Trump can certainly bomb narco boats.

D (13:46)

Are there any limits on what he could choose to bomb? I suppose, sure.

E (13:52)

I mean, there are limits. If you have to show that if the President is bombing things that are not a danger to the United States, then sure, there could be limits on that. But the President has very broad discretion. He has very broad power and very broad discretion as the chief executive officer and as the commander in chief as it relates to controlling our military, protecting our country, protecting shipping lanes, protecting our allies. He has broad powers. Remember, if you look at the Constitution, that the Congress has the power to declare war, not make war. Right. So there's a difference there. And the founders actually debated that. If you go back and look at the Federalist Papers, they intentionally changed that language from make war to declare war to give the President more leeway, more running room to protect our country.

C (14:44)

Hmm. Yeah. I mean, I'm mostly just worried that if the future elections don't go our way, that they're gonna try and, you know, throw Secretary Hegseth in the Gulag.

D (14:55)

I doubt they would. I think there's probably. I mean, I guess I shouldn't say they won't because there's really no limit to the damage the left might due to the country in a fit of pique. But I think historically at least, there would be a very strong bipartisan hesitancy to have our military leaders be second guessing actions they take. Cause they're just going to get prosecuted for it by the other party. Because at that point, if they're gonna throw out that they could do it for probably any other military action as well. I think you'd need a more clear cut unanimity on it being something completely unacceptable. You know, massacre a village in Vietnam.

C (15:31)

Where they had evidence that that was clear that they were only civilians, for example. Mike, we've got only about a minute and a half left in this segment, but I wanted to play this cut from Judge Jeanine, or I guess U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro. 291.

E (15:47)

There certainly was an effort to, you know, misclassify, mischaracterize certain categories of crime. And it was an attempt to make crime look lower than it was. And the investigation that we conducted over a period of several months, months based upon the report of the deflation of numbers was very thorough. As you indicated, over 6,000 reports were looked at, over 50 witnesses, and those witnesses were rank and filed from the top down. But the bottom line here is this. Now we're in a situation with President Trump and the attorney general, Pam Bondi, where every case is being looked at, every case is being reviewed by my office.

C (16:28)

My question's quick here, Mike. What can you do? I guess state level, other states are probably cooking the books on crime stats as well. But at least in D.C. there is some federal control. How do you fix this? Who can you hold accountable?

E (16:40)

I would open a criminal probe because if you are making false statements to the federal government with your crime statistics in order to get, for example, more grant money, you could be charged for that. You could be charged for fraud. You could be charged with for conspiracy to be charged.

C (16:57)

Can Jeanine Pirro do that?

E (16:59)

She could. I think that she should look more. Look more closely at this.

C (17:03)

Mike Davis. Thanks for the time, my friend. We'll see you soon.

E (17:05)

Thank you.

C (17:08)

You know, I've been thinking about how much culture is shaped by what we choose to watch. Because whether we realize it or not, the stories we invite into our homes shape the way we see the world. That's why what Angel Studios is doing matters. And right now, they're having their biggest sale of the year. For a limited time, you can get an Angel Guild membership for as low $6.99 a month for 12 months, plus two free tickets to see David in theaters. Angel Studios is leading a quiet revolution in entertainment. They're telling stories that elevate truth, celebrate family, and remind us what courage really looks like.

A (17:41)

These aren't just good films. They're cultural reset buttons. When you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment.

C (17:48)

You help create it, and you help decide what the next generation of stories will look like. Take advantage of the lowest price of the year, become a member of the Angel Guild and get your two free tickets to see David in theaters this Christmas. Go to angel.comcharlie that's angel.comcharlie to learn more. All right. So Senator Mike Lee, welcome back to the show. It's great to have you. Thank you for making the time. There has been a raging debate online. And then I think Mark Wayne Mullen, one of your Senate colleagues who also comes on the show often, he sort of seemed like he was now open to the idea of nuking the filibuster. I had all these questions. Why would. If we don't, you know, you got Mitch McConnell, you got Susan Collins, Murkowski. I don't know what you could even get accomplished if you do nuke the filibuster. And then you came out with this tweet 308, you say the chronic abuse of the Senate 60 vote cloture standard must come to an end. Now the Senate GOP must immediately start fighting cloture abuse by, among other things, requiring senators to debate. So lay out how this is distinct from just nuking the filibuster.

B (18:57)

Look, these are all ways that we're focused on to try to end filibuster abuse and cloture abuse. And first, let me explain what cloture is and what the filibuster is. The Senate from the very beginning of its existence for, you know, nearly two and a half centuries, has had, as a general rule, unlimited debate that you allow. As long as any senator wants to debate, debate will continue. Now, starting about a century ago, I think it was maybe in 1917, they came up with a means by which they could bring debate to a close. Initially it required a 3,4 supermajority, that was later lowered to a 2/3 supermajority. It's now a 3/5 supermajority and has been there for about 50 years. Meaning in a 100 vote Senate, you've got to have 60 votes from 60 different senators to bring debate to a close. Then and only then can you bring debate to a close. So the whole point of this cloture rule, it's not to create a de facto 60 vote threshold for passing legislation itself. It often has that effect. But really the purpose of it is to extend debate in Leicester until you get 60 votes to bring debate to a close. Here's what it's metastasized into, though. What it's turned into is something very interesting. It's turned into people saying, well, I don't want to vote for it, I won't support cloture, therefore I don't have to debate it and I can kill it simply by refusing to support cloture. But then we don't require them to debate. And so this allows them a cheap and easy way of creating a de facto 60 vote threshold for passing legislation. That's not how it's supposed to work. The point is this. If we enforce the cloture rule, we could end cloture abuse and we could end this perpetual tail chasing model in which even when Republicans control the Senate and the House and the White House as we currently do, we just take all sorts of things off the table. We can't accomplish this. We can't accomplish that. Why? Well, because we don't have 60 votes. There are other ways to break through this. You enforce the rules by requiring them to debate. And then the minute they stop debating, either because you physically exhausted them or because they have exhausted their right to continue speaking. We have a number of rules about that, including you can only speak twice on the same legislative day, on the same discrete legislative matter. If they have exhausted either themselves physically or their right to speak that moment, you can call the vote, and that vote is cast as simple majority threshold, and you can get a lot passed. We haven't been doing that. We need to get back into that business.

C (21:46)

Yeah, that's. So you're basically. You know, you've seen these. Senator Cruz did the marathon. You had Cory Booker do these marathons. Is that kind of. What if we change the rules? I have a question about how you would actually change it. But if we actually started enforcing, in person, IRL debate on the floor of the Senate, that's what you would basically start seeing, is you'd start seeing 50 senators doing marathon debate to try and outlast their opponent, basically.

B (22:14)

That's right. That's right. The problem with today's filibuster is that it's not really a filibuster. It's not Jimmy Stewart speaking until he collapses on the Senate floor. So at no point have Democrats this year, while we've held the Senate and the House and the White House, at no point have Democrats been forced to go down to the floor and talk without stopping to defend their terrible policies until they have to go to the bathroom or get some sleep, or until everybody who wants to speak and debate on it have exhausted their ability to do so. That is what most Americans justifiably understand the filibuster to be. And it's not happening because we're not enforcing our own rules.

D (22:54)

You know, I'm seeing this could have the beneficial side effect. It might force some earlier retirements by some guys who just say, I'm not up for this.

C (23:02)

You'd start having to elect in the primaries, like, based on, like, youth and vigor. Because we need a guy that can actually, like, stand on the Senate floor to block.

D (23:11)

It's like drafting a hockey team. This guy's not quite as based on the policies, but he has great stamina.

C (23:15)

Yeah, great stamina. This is what we've done with Supreme Court. It's like, what are they, 37? Yeah, let's do it.

E (23:20)

Let's get younger.

C (23:21)

Younger.

B (23:21)

Yep.

C (23:22)

Yeah. That's interesting. So how would you go about changing the rules? What needs to happen? Could this be Majority Leader Thune? Could he get this done?

B (23:30)

Essentially, yes. So that's the beauty of this thing, Andrew, is that no rules change is required. We don't have to do anything to change them, because the rules not only already allow this, the rules already contemplate that this is what a filibuster is. So, remember, Democrats have been able to use just the mere concept of a talking filibuster to grind things from a halt. And we've allowed them to do that because we haven't enforced it. So, yes, if we adopted this standpoint, the majority leader, in consultation with whoever is sitting in the presiding officer's chair at the moment, decides that we're going to begin enforcing this. And the minute they're not there to debate, either because they physically don't want to or because they can't, because they've exhausted their right to do so under our existing rules, then you call the question, meaning you call the vote on that matter. And when there's nobody there debating it, the passage of that legislation is set at a simple majority.

C (24:39)

That is a really. I mean, it does strike me, when I saw you tweet this out, Senator, I was like, this is. I mean, you do think of the Senate being the premier legislative body in the world that you think of all this vigorous debate that happens on the Senate floor, but it's really not like that. It's a bunch of grandstanding for clips, and so you can post them on social, and you can take cheap shots at your opponents without them answering back, and then you don't really debate. That's the whole point of cloture, is that you just. You stave off actual vigorous debate. And wouldn't the Senate be benefited by this back and forth of ideas? I mean, it does, it does strike me that this is. You're sort of getting it back to its original purpose.

B (25:22)

No, that's exactly right. Now, I will be clear. There are times when real debate does happen on the Senate floor. Sometimes it's in slow motion, but sometimes there is no debate going on at all. Which brings back to. Brings us back to how we would do this. The only real catch here, what's difficult about this, I don't mean to describe this as easy, and I don't mean to suggest that the minute we decided to do this, we could and would immediately pass everything that we wanted without any hitch or without any difficulty. That's not true, but it gives us the opportunity to do that. And I think in many cases we would be able to pass things that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do. But here's the Catch. The catch is that Republicans would need, as the majority party in the Senate, would need, to show up and spend significant time on the Senate floor. The Republican leadership. Yeah, right. I mean, but that is what we signed up for. We've often been told as senators, you know, if you don't want to fight hires, don't become a firefighter. And if you don't want to cast difficult votes at inconvenient times, don't become a lawmaker, don't come to the United States Senate. If we decided as a conference we're going to do this, there's a lot more that we could accomplish, and we could do it this way without having to change a single rule. It really is the natural fulfillment of what the filibuster is supposed to be. Right now, we don't have real filibusters. We just have chronic cloture abuse. And then we deceive the public into thinking that the reason we can't do some of the things that we want to do is because we don't have 60 votes. Well, it's been over 100 years since Republicans have had 60 votes in the Senate, that 3/5 super majority. And you can't blame it all on.

C (27:13)

The filibuster, because you can blame it on the 17th. You can blame it on the 17th. But that's. You know, I hadn't even. Yeah, I haven't even thought about that, Senator, that we have. It's been over 100 years since we've had 60 Republican senators. 100 years. I mean, if we think we're ever going. So my big thing, Senator Lee, is that I want immigration reform. That's what I think. I think it is the switch that you could flip that would solve a ton of our problems. That's me personally. I think there's a lot of energy for that in the base, but we're never gonna get there with this Democrat Party. But here's my concern, is that even if we got there, we nuked the filibuster, we don't have enough votes to do anything important anyways. So the question is, will Senator Thune. Have you pitched this to Senator Thune? Leader Thune, have you pitched this to the president, to the White House? Is this something that could gain momentum and traction and become a thing?

B (28:05)

I have pitched it to the president. I've pitched it to Leader Thune. I've pitched it to Senate Republicans. I've pitched it to the White House staff, and I have yet to hear anyone identify a reason why it couldn't work, sometimes people will point out correctly what the difficulty could be. And the difficulty is exactly what I just described it as, which is that it would require attendance and prolonged attendance at inconvenient hours. But nobody has explained any reason why it wouldn't work. And while there are some difficulties inherent in that, I think we owe that to the American people. At a time when we've had millions upon millions of people coming into our country illegally over the last four years, at a time when our laws are making it very difficult, that is becoming obvious in litigation pending now in the District of Columbia over our ability to deport those individuals who came in unlawfully. Given the now huge backlog we have in our immigration courts, yes, we gotta have reform in that area. We need permitting reform, we need regulatory reform. We need to pass the REINS Act. All these things could benefit from this strategy.

C (29:16)

I think it's brilliant. I think I don't see a good example or a good reason to not do it, as you said. And senators should be pulling long hours. Our US Senators should be pulling very long hours. Senator Mike Lee, a really amazing idea. Thank you for making the time.

B (29:31)

Thank you.

C (29:34)

Christmas is a time of giving. And there's nothing better than knowing that what you give results in saving the life of an innocent baby. And for every baby we save, there is a mom who is saved from a lifetime of regret. Every Christmas stocking you will look at this month is a blessing in your life. Won't you make that possible for another mom? Today, preborn provides free ultrasounds to girls and women. And an ultrasound doubles the chance she'll choose life. $140 gives five free ultrasounds and saves babies. Just $28 a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day. And today, thanks to a dollar for dollar match, your gift saves twice as many babies. And if you're looking for the perfect tax deductible year end giving idea, I personally cannot think of a better one than a $15,000 gift providing an ultrasound machine saving thousands of lives for years to come. Join me in saving babies right now and making it a merry Christmas. Call 833-850-2229 or click on the preborn banner@charliekirk.com we're just Blake and I, we were imagining all these octogenarians in the Senate just trying to pull all nighters and stand up on their own two feet. I bet they, maybe they pull in, you know, like a, like a chair for some of the oldies. Dick Durbin's 81. Richard Blumenthal is. That's funny. 79 to 80 years old. I guess that's older than I thought. Chuck Grassley's the oldest at 92. Chuck Schumer 75. Elizabeth Warren is 76. And let's see here. Bernie Sanders has got to be like, what, like 80.

D (31:10)

Sanders is 84.

C (31:11)

84.

D (31:11)

But as you said, Sanders, he kind of comes off like he can still hang. He's an energetic 84.

C (31:17)

So the whole time I was doing that interview with Senator Lee, I was like, blake's probably sitting here just spinning, twiddling his thumbs, going, why it won't work. And that, like, bothered me to feel your energy.

D (31:29)

I appreciate that. The Senator wants more real debate in the Senate. It's sort of a funny thing. You can read about these great debates in the United States House and in the United States senate in the 1800s. You have this speech on the Senate floor that's so fiery by Charles Sumner that this guy from South Carolina comes in and beats him over the head with a cane in front of everybody. Because the senators would be there and debate in person. And they don't anymore. You get this myth because of C Span that they're doing that, but they're not. It's. They're. They're just speaking to an empty hall and some yawning tourists.

C (32:00)

Yeah. I think you imagine it more like, like, you know, the Oxford Union. Yeah. Where they go back and forth, they.

D (32:08)

Have prime minister's questions, the PM goes in, everyone's there, and it's. They still have a tradition. You have the people there to debate.

C (32:15)

I would love to see we've lost that.

D (32:17)

It would be good to restore that. That said, I think this is just a slightly different dressed up way to nuke the filibuster.

C (32:23)

I mean, yeah, it's. It. But I actually do think I was compelled by a return to what it should be, what it was supposed to be. And I actually think Leader Thune should keep, like, just totally reform it. So they have to go back and.

D (32:37)

Forth, stick to my position. It's worth getting rid of if you have good legislation that you will pass. If you don't, what's the point?

C (32:44)

Yeah, well, immigration is the North Star telling you, go ahead and throw up. I don't know if this is this B roll or does this have audio? Anyways, 310. This is from Tyler Boyer, COO of Turning Point Action. And this is him entering the venue this morning. 3:10. And it's just beautiful presentation. It's got images of Charlie. There's some like, I don't even know, they put decals on the floor and they look like they kind of glow or whatever. So that's just, that's one of the entry points into amfest. And it's, I mean, it's phenomenal. So tonight we're going to have Russell Brand, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Erica Kirk is going to welcome us in and more. And then tomorrow, obviously, day two, lots of speakers, tons of breakouts. If you want to check out the agenda, you can go to tpusa.com agenda if you want to see everything that's going on. We're going to have the Thought Crime crew together at 1:30 tomorrow local.

D (33:49)

1:30, I think.

C (33:50)

Yeah, 1:30 local, 3:30 eastern. So we're going to be doing that from Expo Hall. We got this big trailer. So Jack, Cliff Maloney, me, Tyler, you. And then we'll probably do some Q and A with the students, which will be really fun. And then we've got a Prove Me Wrong at that same location. Megan Kelly's doing it, Michael Knowles is doing it. Lots of different folks are gonna be doing that. We're capturing all that content, the back and forth with the students. So keeping Charlie's legacy of doing that alive at that at amfest. And I think last year was the first year he actually did a Prove Me Wrong inside the Expo Hall. So I think so.

D (34:22)

Yeah, I don't think that many people were trying to prove him wrong on anything.

C (34:25)

It was fun questions. I was like, you know, which team is better? Sports, sports questions, football questions, ragging on his, his Chicago Beach.

D (34:33)

What time do we begin the stream today? Because we've had a few questions about that.

C (34:36)

The stream is probably going to start, I believe at around 4:45. So 4:36 30 Eastern. All right. Yeah, because we've got Pastor John Amanchukwu is going to start us and then we've got. Yeah, so we've got. So it's updated. Erica Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Russell Brand, Michael Knowles, Tucker Carlson. And then there's a concert tonight with Nate Smith and that is starting probably, I would say we'll probably start the stream at 4:30 and then programming begins at 4:50. And again that's local time. So keep it on Eastern. 6:30 begins at 6:45 probably is when the programming begins Eastern. So you're going to check it out and you can get that on rumble.com for streaming if you want to watch it on Real America's Voice. Real America's Voice will also also have it. And it's going to be a great weekend. It's going to be a phenomenal, phenomenal weekend. And I think to some of the themes we were talking about before Blake, that I just think the movement is hungry for a moment where we get to see all these disparate voices, these competing viewpoints come together in one big event that's big enough to hold them all. That's the goal.

D (35:49)

Now it's not big enough to hold them all. That's the amazing thing. And that's always what Charlie wanted. He wanted the, you know, the stadium event. We had that. He wanted the event. He wanted to grow so huge. Phoenix itself wasn't big enough.

C (36:02)

Yeah. And we, we, we are going to announce some big news about that for next year, but we're not ready yet. Okay. There's, there's, there's stuff going on behind the scenes about the super bowl halftime show. Actually, I, I said that wrong. The halftime show. The All American. Forgive me. That. That is not our branding.

D (36:20)

The physically large game.

C (36:21)

Halftime. Yeah. Halftime show. I apologize. And so there's news that we'll have there. There's news about next year. And if you want to get tickets and you weren't able to for AmFest this year, go to amfest.com to pre order your tickets for next year with a discount. We will see you tomorrow from the floor of America Fest. Talk to you then.

B (36:46)

For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.